Allentown, Fop Agree To Try Arbitration

July 19, 1986|by DAVID M. ERDMAN, The Morning Call

Allentown's police union yesterday agreed to drop an unfair labor practices charge against the city when city negotiators agreed to submit to arbitration over a complaint that the city illegally changed the police pension plan.

The two sides were scheduled to argue the matter at a hearing yesterday before Pennsylvania Labor Relations board examiner John Skonier in the Old Lehigh County Courthouse.

But the city and Fraternal Order of Police representatives were able to reach accord before the hearing began.

Skonier said the two sides agreed to have the dispute aired at a three- member arbitration panel in December. "The unfair labor practices charges have been dropped," he said.

"We got exactly what we wanted," said attorney Aaron Matte of Allentown, representative for the FOP.

The dispute over the pension dates back to 1976, when the city tried to rescue its distressed pension fund by enrolling new police and firefighters in the Pennsylvania Municipal Employees Retirement System. FOP officials complained the move deprived new employees of pension benefits at the level being received by older employeesand that in making the move without first consulting the union, the city was violating the police contract.

The union subsequently filed unfair labor practices charges, leading to yesterday's hearing, which was to decide whether the police would get the right to argue the case before an arbitration panel.

City officials were willing to back down on their opposition against arbitration, Kaufman said, because they hoped the delay until the December arbitration hearing would provide enough time for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to render an opinion on a similar case, which could have impact on the police pension case.

The pending Supreme Court decision involves the city and Local 302 of the International Association of Fire Fighters. The firefighters contend the city acted illegally in changing the pension plans because it created one pension plan for older employees and another plan for employees hired after 1976.

"We never wanted arbitration; they did," said Kaufman. "But hopefully there will be a decision in Supreme Court to resolve this issue without the necessity of arbitration. But if there is no decision by that time, we'll have to submit to the arbitration."

The police union's position, however, said Matte, is that, despite what the Supreme Court rules, the police union will pursue its arguments against the new pension plan.

"The city has tried to present the two cases as identical," said Matte, "but our position is that . . . this is a whole other case and a whole different story."

Said FOP President Richard Suppan, who was to testify at yesterday's hearing, "We have a broader case than do the firemen. Our case represents a violation of our contract. Nobody ever negotiated the pension change with us."

The city has resisted reinstating all new employees in the old pension system, city administrators have said, because it might mean the city would have to come up with several million dollars to make the fund solvent.

Suppan said, however, "The city has never circulated an up-to-date position paper to show what the effect of putting our people back into the pension system would cost the city. There never has been a thorough accounting of what that would mean. All we have heard are estimates."

As part of the agreement yesterday, Skonier said both sides also agreed on two members to serve on the arbitration panel. Attorney Gary Lightman of Harrisburg was named police representative and Assistant City Solicitor Jack I. Kaufman, the city's representative. A third member of the panel, a neutral observer to be agreed upon by both sides, has yet to be chosen.